AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
115,019
13,455
113
Low Earth Orbit
Nov 29 2010


Making CO2 Better for Oil Extraction

November 29, 2010

Researchers have developed a soap-like additive for CO2 that turns it into a viable solvent for commercial-scale enhanced oil recovery to increase the amount of crude oil that can be extracted from oil fields. This might be a major step in oil field recovery, which could vastly expand the world reserves.

University of Pittsburg's Oil Flood Ideal vs Actual Using CO2 Additive. See text for the Pitt link below.

At the UK’s University of Bristol a research team with University of Pittsburgh collaborators has used the UK’s Science and Technology Facilities Council’s (STFC) ISIS Neutron Source to come up with a new way to treat carbon dioxide, so that it can be used in efficient and environmentally friendly methods for extracting oil.
CO2 offers an efficient, cheap, non-toxic, non-flammable and environmentally responsible alternative to conventional petrochemical solvents. Even water as a solvent for example, comes with its own set of problems; after being used to flush out oil from rocks it then requires cleaning before it can be used again, whereas liquid CO2 can be re-used immediately.

Bristol’s Professor Julian Eastoe explains saying, “Carbon dioxide is useful in enhanced oil recovery as it is able to flow through the pores in the rock much more easily than water. The additive, a surfactant, will help thicken the carbon dioxide, which is vital for this process, allowing it to flow through the rock more efficiently. There is also a useful side effect of our ability to use CO2 in this way, as in the future the process will take carbon dioxide generated by industrial activity from atmosphere dumping and lock it deep underground. Getting longer life out of existing oil reserves will also give more time for research into replacements into non-carbon energy sources such as solar or hydrogen.”

The additives have other uses as well; they can also be used to reduce the environmental damage caused by every day industrial processes such as food processing and the manufacture of electronics. The scientific paper was published in the journal Langmuir.

The news release has made a significant splash in the UK. Minister for Science and Universities David Willetts said, “This shows what science can do for the environment. It’s why the Government has protected the science budget. In particular it shows how financing core science facilities can lead to many different projects with valuable applications.”

Meanwhile there is an industrial trend, liquid CO2 is increasingly being used to replace common petrochemical solvents because it requires less processing and it can be easily recycled. The difficulty has been that in order to operate effectively as a solvent, carbon dioxide needs additives, many of which are in themselves, damaging to the environment.

Pitt’s Bob Enick said, “The quest to find a chemical capable of modifying the properties of CO2 to make it suitable for widespread use as a solvent in enhanced oil recovery has been long. Previous advances have involved surfactants containing fluorine, which although highly soluble in CO2, are very environmentally damaging. The new additive, surfactant TC14, contains no fluorine at all and is a harmless hydrocarbon.”

The new additive, a surfactant named TC14, enables small pockets to form in the liquid CO2 called reverse micelles causing the liquid to thicken. Neutron scattering at ISIS allowed the structure of the reverse micelles to be studied in the CO2 as they formed under high pressure. The neutron instruments giving this molecular level viewpoint are often described as ‘super-microscopes’.

CO2 Surfactant Image Device. Click image for more info.

ISIS scientist Dr Sarah Rogers explains, “Beams of neutrons are able to penetrate deep inside samples giving unique information about the location and arrangement of the micelles at a molecular level. By altering the pressure in a specially constructed experimental cell, dissolved material can easily be separated and removed leaving the carbon dioxide for the next use. It would be difficult to look at this system using any other technique, as the CO2 needs to be kept under high pressure. Only under the scrutiny of neutron beams can you fully reveal its actions and properties.”

Professor Eastoe sums it up, “Experiments on Sans2d are particularly fast and accurate in comparison to some older neutron scattering instruments. This development of neutron instrument technology is part of what makes ISIS a world leading science facility.”

The international team includes the scientists from Bristol University led by Professor Julian Eastoe, the University of Pittsburgh led by Professor Bob Enick and ISIS scientists Dr Sarah Rogers and Dr Richard Heenan. The project has been funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and the US Department of Energy to explore using high pressure CO2 to extract residual oil retained in the pores of rock.

Just how well the new surfactant for CO2 works in the field is yet to be tested. The cost of the fieldwork with all the CO2 and the materials isn’t known. But with a long list of oil fields with something on the order of 3 to 4 times the amount of oil used in history yet to be recovered and oil prices on the high side, the new technology surely has great economic legs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
Pat will only respond to written questions, lol

That is the funniest and most telling part.

Pat fails in every attempt to discredit the IPCC but when he is challenged in an open forum he runs away asking for the question in writing.

What a baffoon.:lol:
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
That is the funniest and most telling part.

Pat fails in every attempt to discredit the IPCC but when he is challenged in an open forum he runs away asking for the question in writing.

What a baffoon.:lol:

Yup, and that's the difference between a true expert in a field, and hiring some white coat for your tobacco denial inspired PR. Disinformation takes time to craft, tacit knowledge can be dispensed on the spot, sometimes it's even understandable by us lay folk!
 
Last edited:

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
115,019
13,455
113
Low Earth Orbit
As a major producer of oil Canada funds everything Canadian from pea soup to beer nuts and that most definetly Includes reasearch.

Can we trust our govt if it is oil funded?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Hide the Incline with the “Rank Trick”

Posted on December 9, 2010 by tamino| 1 Comment
or, Hey David Whitehouse — why is the sky orange?
It seems that David Whitehouse still doesn’t understand basic statistics. I mean the really basic stuff.

But he sure understands how to mislead people! This time Whitehouse is all about how this year will *not* be a record hot year. If you use data from NASA GISS for the whole globe then this year almost surely will be a the hottest on record — but Whitehouse doesn’t mention that. He does glibly quote numbers, not mentioning until the end that he’s using the CRUTEM3gl data set, which is for land areas only. That’s not what most people use when talking about global temperature — we regard the ocean as part of the globe — but it really doesn’t matter. Except as an indicator that David Whitehouse is kinda new to this whole “global temperature” thing, but nonetheless feels qualified to pontificate from his position of ignorance.

But hey — let the baby have his bottle! Let’s take a look at CRUTEM3 data (land-only average temperature from HadCRU). What should we have expected all along from 2010? Here’s the CRUTEM3 data (annual averages) from 1975 through 2009:

I’ve plotted the trend over this time period (which is approximately linear), and extrapolated the trend to 2010, in order to determine what the “upward trend” theory (a.k.a. “global warming”) would have predicted for this year (indicated by the red “x”). It should be about the 3rd-hottest on record (for CRUTEM3gl). Although we only have 2010 data for 10 months (the year not yet being over), here’s the average thus far:

Well gosh! It looks like this year is set to come in right on target — in fact, it’s set to come in a wee bit hotter than prediction — if you use that “upward trend” theory of global temperature. The one called “global warming.”

Once again, the observed data follow the existing global warming trend almost exactly. And once again, spinmeisters find a way to make that seem to “falsify” global warming.

And how, pray tell, does Whitehouse “spin away” the fact that this year’s temperature will be right on target according to global warming? He uses the “rank trick” — pointing out that this year will not rank #1 hottest year (if you use land-only data from HadCRU).

If the media headlines are to be believed 2010 is heading to be either the warmest or in the top three warmest years since the instrumental global temperature records began 150 years ago, and proof that the world is getting ever warmer. But looking more closely at the data reveals a different picture.

2010 will be remembered for just two warm months, attributable to the El Nino effect, with the rest of the year being nothing but average, or less than average temperature.

Here’s the month-by-month temperature anomaly from CRUTEM3gl, for the years 1998 to 2010. I’ve plotted 1998 in blue, 2005 in green, and this year (as yet unfinished) in red:

No single year is ranked #1 hottest for every month, but most months this year have been pretty hot compared to years 1998-2009. But is it accurate, is it fair, is it honest, for Whitehouse to characterize most of 2010 as “the rest of the year being nothing but average, or less than average temperature”?

Only if you cheat. Whitehouse begins his missive talking about “since the instrumental global temperature records began 150 years ago,” then conveniently ignores everything before 1998. Here’s the month-by-month temperature anomaly from CRUTEM3gl, for the years 1850 to 2010. As before, I’ve plotted 1998 in blue, 2005 in green, and this year (as yet unfinished) in red:

If you say that any month in 2010 can be called “average, or less than average,” then I say that your statement is inaccurate, unfair, and dishonest.

It’s a very common trick used by those who deny the reality of global warming, to focus only on the “#1 hottest record” so they can draw attention away from what really counts. It’s the trend, stupid.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63

It's a great lecture. I particularly liked his treatment of Douglas et al., that was the paper that some of those stolen CRU emails concerned, which resulted in some editors quitting the editorial board.

Anyone with a lick of statistical acumen can tell you that the standard error of the mean is not a valid tool to use for hypothesis testing.

A horrible paper that had no business being published.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
It's a great lecture. I particularly liked his treatment of Douglas et al., that was the paper that some of those stolen CRU emails concerned, which resulted in some editors quitting the editorial board.

Anyone with a lick of statistical acumen can tell you that the standard error of the mean is not a valid tool to use for hypothesis testing.

A horrible paper that had no business being published.

Nice to see a little push back after the smear campaign.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
Wiki-Leaks: Climate Scientists Subject to Cyber Attack

During the original climate gate hack, we know that several other climate centers were also targeted.
Now, french journalists following the wiki leaks story have found evidence of more attacks against climate research agencies. I am reprinting the post from the Plains Justice Today blog below.

Correction: The office targeted by this “spear-phishing” attack was the Division of Ocean Affairs of the Office of the Special Envoy for Climate Change, within the U.S. State Department. The Guardian posted the cable in question on Dec. 3 and the New York Times reported on the revelation in a Dec. 4 article about Chinese cyber warfare, although it’s not clear to me that there’s any substantive link between the Chinese and this particular attack.
Leading French newspaper Le Monde has been delving into WikiLeaks in depth with a growing online section devoted to new revelations. An article posted Dec. 12, titled Pirates informatiques contre climatologues (Computer pirates against climatologists), reveals a few American diplomats’ fears that cyberattacks on climate scientists might increase in the days leading up to the 2009 Copenhagen meeting. One email reveals an unsuccessful attack against the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science (OES) that has received very little coverage (none that I can find) in domestic press.
According to Le Monde, there was little discussion of “Climategate” via diplomatic cables, but June 19, 2009 traffic revealed by WikiLeaks discussed a failed attack against an agency of the U.S. government. During the summer of 2009, five OES employees received an email titled “China and climate change”, disguised to look as if it originated with an economics journalist for the National Journal. The body of the message was also written specifically for the recipients, according to their professional roles. Attached to the message was a PDF document carrying malware designed to take silent control of the targeted computer. At least one of the targeted employees opened the attachment. Fortunately the State Department’s frequent computer security updates detected and disabled the attack.
The note cited by Le Monde concludes (my translation of the French translation):
As climate negotiations continue, it is likely that attacks like this will persist…. Personnel involved in climate change research or related subjects should remain conscious of the elevated risk.
As loud voices call for prosecution of Julian Assange and warn of the risk of Chinese cyber warfare, I can’t help but wonder, where were the voices of outrage and the demands for investigation and justice when unknown parties attacked the U.S. State Department in an attempt to derail the Copenhagen negotiations? Or does the need for justice depend on the ends pursued by “cyberterrorists”?


It sure would be nice to know who was behind the hack.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
115,019
13,455
113
Low Earth Orbit
Attached to the message was a PDF document carrying malware designed to take silent control of the targeted computer. At least one of the targeted employees opened the attachment. Fortunately the State Department’s frequent computer security updates detected and disabled the attack.
Picked off by Windows Essentials...yeah that sounds like "State sponsored cyber attack" for sure. Those Chinamen simply know nothing about writing code and could never write a code that wouldn't be picked off as a trojan. They aren't tall enough and have no peripheral eyesight.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
GMU paralyzed by Plagiarism Investigation

Plagiarism charges against George Mason University statistician Edward Wegman have brought the university's administration to an apparent standstill, according to the latest report from John Mashey (attached).
Wegman actually stands accused of having committed a host of infractions with the “AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE 'HOCKEY STICK' GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION” that he presented to Congress in 2006. The worst, however (and the easiest to prove) is that he or his co-authors plagiarized a huge amount of material from a book by one of their targets, Raymond Bradley. In many cases, the only differences between Wegman's lifted quotes and Bradley's original material occurred when Wegman (or his assistants) changed the text to change the meaning.
Per Mashey's report, Rice University received a similar complaint against one of Wegman's co-authors, David R Scott. Rice responded immediately, investigating the charge and clearing Scott as the culprit in nine days. Nine MONTHS later, GMU has made no finding. We wait with interest ....


strange inquiries v1 0.pdf2.59 MB

....about time.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
115,019
13,455
113
Low Earth Orbit

From 150 million years ago to 65 million years ago, CO2 levels decreased by 1000 ppm. During that same period, temperatures rose by 7 degrees Centigrade.




Cold kills record number of manatees




Florida's record number of manatee deaths in 2010 — 699 — were largely blamed on the severe cold last winter. And that count could rise with more cold temperatures expected next week.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission officials said Friday that 2010 saw an unprecedented die-off for the endangered mammals. Last winter's freezing temperatures gave many manatees an acute cold shock, like severe hypothermia, that killed them faster than in previous winters, said Martine deWit, commission veterinarian. Also, the cold weather spread as far south as the Everglades and Florida Keys, areas where manatees usually don't see many cold-related deaths.


The cold was specifically blamed for 244 of the sea-cow deaths. The cause of another 271, however, couldn't conclusively be determined or the carcasses were not recovered. This month, the state hasn't attributed any manatee deaths to cold, but deWit said it's still early in the season.
State officials are trying to improve manatee survival by improving access to warm-water sites. Earlier this month, a gate to the spring at Ellie Schiller Homosassa Springs Wildlife State Park was reopened, allowing manatees admittance for the first time in 30 years.
State officials encourage people to report any wildlife affected by cold to 888-404-FWCC (3922).

Monday, December 13, 2010 8:15 AM


SeaWorld takes in sea turtles rescued from the cold

More InfoORLANDO --




The Florida freeze has sent Orlando area residents scrambling to stay safe in the cold, but even colder weather up north has been a bigger problem for both people and animals.

SeaWorld Orlando has taken in more than a dozen sea turtles that were flown in from New England over the weekend.
The 20 cold-stressed turtles were rescued from Cape Cod Bay in November, and treated at the New England Aquarium.
The turtles arrived in Orlando on Sunday aboard a U.S. Coast Guard plane.

SeaWorld said it will take care of the turtles until they are ready to be released back into the wild.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
115,019
13,455
113
Low Earth Orbit

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,814
467
83

From 150 million years ago to 65 million years ago, CO2 levels decreased by 1000 ppm. During that same period, temperatures rose by 7 degrees Centigrade.


C02 isn't the only climate changing force.. when all other forces are in the low end of their cycles, and yet C02 is driving up temperature, anthropogenic factors are the most obvious cause of global warming.. solar cycles, el nino/la nina, irradiative warming, volcanoes and some other crap - they're all fluctuating in the last 40 years yet C02 emissions and temperature are both continually rising.. this is based on a wealth of fairly objective, non-politicized science.. about the manatees - isolated event, just because global warming exists doesn't mean that cold temperatures in spots cannot.. about ice-extent, we've already gone over that one with you as well.. about your arguments - you don't have one left.. etc, etc, etc, etc.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
115,019
13,455
113
Low Earth Orbit
The Dessler Cloud Feedback Paper in Science: A Step Backward for Climate Research

December 9th, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
How clouds respond to warming – the ‘cloud feedback’ problem – will likely determine whether manmade global warming becomes either the defining environmental event of the 21st Century, or is merely lost in the noise of natural climate variability.
Unfortunately, diagnosing cloud feedback from our global satellite observations has been surprisingly difficult. The problem isn’t the quality of the data, though. The problem is figuring out what the cloud and temperature behaviors we observe in the data mean in terms of cause and effect.
So, Andy Dessler’s (a Texas A&M climate researcher) new paper appearing in Science this week is potentially significant, for it claims to have greatly closed the gap in our understanding of cloud feedback.
Dessler’s paper claims to show that cloud feedback is indeed positive, and generally supportive of the cloud feedbacks exhibited by the IPCC computerized climate models. This would in turn support the IPCC’s claim that anthropogenic global warming will become an increasingly serious problem in the future.
Unfortunately, the central evidence contained in the paper is weak at best, and seriously misleading at worst. It uses flawed logic to ignore recent advancements we have made in identifying cloud feedback.
In fact, the new paper is like going back to using only X-rays for medical imaging when we already have MRI technology available to us.

What the New Study Shows

So what is this new evidence of positive cloud feedback that Dessler has published? Well, actually it is not new. It’s basically the same evidence we published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Yet we came to a very different conclusion, which was that the only clear evidence of feedback we found in the data was of strongly negative cloud feedback.
But how can this be? How can two climate researchers, using the same dataset, come to opposite conclusions?
The answer lies in an issue that challenges researchers in most scientific disciplines – separating cause from effect.
Dessler’s claim (and the IPCC party line) is that cloud changes are caused by temperature changes, and not the other way around. Causation only occurs in one direction, not the other.
In their interpretation, if one observes a warmer year being accompanied by fewer clouds, then that is evidence of positive cloud feedback. Why? Because if warming causes fewer clouds, it lets in more sunlight, which then amplifies the warming. That is positive cloud feedback in a nutshell.
But what if the warming was caused by fewer clouds, rather than the fewer clouds being caused by warming? In other words, what if previous researchers have simply mixed up cause and effect when estimating cloud feedback?
A Step Backwards for Climate Science
What we demonstrated in our JGR paper earlier this year is that when cloud changes cause temperature changes, it gives the illusion of positive cloud feedback – even if strongly negative cloud feedback is really operating!
I can not overemphasize the importance of that last statement.
We used essentially the same satellite dataset Dessler uses, but we analyzed those data with something called ‘phase space analysis’. Phase space analysis allows us to “see” behaviors in the climate system that would not be apparent with traditional methods of data analysis. It is like using an MRI to see a type of tumor that X-rays cannot reveal.
What we showed was basically a new diagnostic capability that can, to some extent, separate cause from effect. This is a fundamental advancement – and one that the news media largely refused to report on.
The Dessler paper is like someone publishing a medical research paper that claims those tumors do not exist, because they still do not show up on our latest X-ray equipment…even though the new MRI technology shows they DO exist!
Sound strange? Welcome to my world.
We even replicated that behavior see in the satellite data analyzed with phase space analysis — our ‘MRI for the climate system’ – by using a simple forcing-feedback climate model containing negative cloud feedback. It showed that, indeed, when clouds cause temperature changes, the illusion of positive cloud feedback is created…even when strongly negative cloud feedback really exists.
Why Dessler Assumed We Are Wrong
To Dessler’s credit, he actually references our paper. But he then immediately discounts our interpretation of the satellite data.
Why?
Because, as he claims, (1) most of the climate variability during the satellite period of record (2000 to 2010) was due to El Nino and La Nina (which is largely true), and (2) no researcher has ever claimed that El Nino or La Nina are caused by clouds.
This simple, blanket claim was then intended to negate all of the evidence we published.
But this is not what we were claiming, nor is it a necessary condition for our interpretation to be correct. El Nino and La Nina represent a temporary change in the way the coupled atmospheric-ocean circulation system operates. And any change in the atmospheric circulation can cause a change in cloud cover, which can in turn cause a change in ocean temperatures. We even showed this behavior for the major La Nina cooling event of 2007-08 in our paper!
It doesn’t mean that “clouds cause El Nino”, as Dessler suggests we are claiming, which would be too simplistic and misleading of a statement. Clouds are complicated beasts, and climate researchers ignore that complexity at their peril.

Very Curious Timing

Dessler’s paper is being announced on probably THE best day for it to support the IPCC’s COP-16 meeting here in Cancun, and whatever agreement is announced tomorrow in the way of international climate policy.
I suspect – but have no proof of it – that Dessler was under pressure to get this paper published to blunt the negative impact our work has had on the IPCC’s efforts.
But if this is the best they can do, the scientists aligning themselves with the IPCC really are running out of ideas to help shore up their climate models, and their claims that our climate system is very sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions.
The weak reasoning the paper employs – and the evidence we published which it purposely ignores! – combined with the great deal of media attention it will garner at a time when the IPCC needs to regain scientific respectability (especially after Climategate), makes this new Science paper just one more reason why the public is increasingly distrustful of the scientific community when it comes to research having enormous policy implications.